Skip to main content

tv   Prime News  HLN  October 10, 2009 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT

6:00 pm
-- because of iran's sanctions act. you have to look at transactions that hav one of the powerful tools and one of the ways that we work with the sanctions act is to use this as weapons to discourage people from investing in iran. from my previous service, i know how powerful that can be. i know how the previous administration also used it to discourage activists from making these investments. i think there is no question -- >> in that regard, under the iran sanctions act, how many of these countries are in violation of our sanctions? how many more countries -- in other words, is the state department actually considering these countries and violations of our sanctions? . attention.
6:01 pm
the good do you rule on the? does the state department imposed the ruling? >> we would impose sanctions if we found there was a violation. we found there was a violation. >> this for the same gentleman. recent excerpts of the international atomic agency confirms that foreign intelligence reports that iran has reason we started -- has recently started work on a nuclear warhead design. does it remain the position that i ran has not restarted this design? -- that iran has not restarted this design? >> that report has not been completed so i cannot comment on the specifics of the report. with respect to the nuclear program, that is something that we continue to keep under
6:02 pm
advisement and review. the details we would be happy to review. >> thank you. are you aware of foreign banks that continue to conduct banks with the iranian authorities? why have they not unsanctioned? >> the question is whose sanctions are they violating? >> we have actwe have acted agan banks. >> what about the bank's? >> they are not allowed to use our system. >> if you find them in violation of that, then you do sanctioned? >> there would be consequences for any foreign banks that reducing our system to do business.
6:03 pm
>> what role do international clearing houses play in the role of our brairan circumventing th? to du>> there is -- we have engd with institutions that you had mentioned to make sure they are where the risk of doing business with iran. some of the institutions that you mentioned we do engage with very closely to make sure they are not being used as a way for iran to obscure the underlying parties to a transaction. that is a concern that we continue to have and to engage on actively. >> outside of the wom -- qom
6:04 pm
facility, how confident is the administration that there are no other secret facilities? >> this is something that the very fact has to raise questions about whether there are things we do not know about. this is something as we put among one of our highest priorities, in terms of the intelligence community. i think this is something while we have no specific evidence of other facilities, it is not something we take for granted. >> could there possibly be? >> by definition there could be. >> this will be my last question since my time is running out. for mr. steinberg, the p5 plus 1 talks have been described as a slow beginning.
6:05 pm
>> i obviously will have to see the event, but certainly with respect to reza, the comments are encouraging in terms of the president's recognition of the role of sanctions. i am hopeful with the chinese, given their past practice, that we can persuade them as well. i cannot guarantee it. he could do you know if russia will commit to stopping anti- aircraft system sales to iran? >> it is something we have raised repeatedly to them. they understand the concerns we have. >> think you, -- thank you. >> secretary steinberg, in your opening statement you basically said the iranians can either negotiate in good faith or they can face increasingly
6:06 pm
international pressure. my question is up to now, do you think they have negotiated in good faith? >> senator, i think this is quite frankly the first concrete evidence we have had during this administration of serious negotiation. i am an outsider with respect to the earlier negotiations and whether those were involved that felt there were process made, but during the first months in office we were not seen the signs of responsiveness at all from them. i think it has been both to a growing focus -- the growing focus of the strategy that has brought intense scrutiny upon them. >> let me ask you this. the first day of talks seemed to produce a potentially positive
6:07 pm
first now i've read press reports that they are denying they made a commitment. which one is it? >> we have a meeting with them on october 19. i think we will see. the good did they make a commitment? >>-- did they make a commitment? they give you 1 cents forward and two steps backward. we can only sustain a process with measurable practical results. my question is, what is that? that is rather amorphous to me. the president said that we should be able to assess whether the talks hold real promise. what is the time when you have in mind? how will we know if they are serious?
6:08 pm
how will we be able to have a sense of benchmarks? >> the issue that we have been just talking about is an important first step. the agreement that they have implemented -- i think we put a lot more emphasis on what they agree to when we come back together again, but if they move forward, actually shipping alpha out the lau would be a tangible step because it would reduce their ability to move forward with enriching this to a highly enriched uranium. that is a tangible step. putting them under safeguards is important. there is a number of steps they need to take.
6:09 pm
they need to implement the additional protocol. that would give us significantly greater confidence about what is going on in the rest of the country. they need to suspend a wrench that -- suspend the ranch that. -- suspend enrichment. we have to make sure they are doing this. >> you listed significant items that need to be pursued. what is the timeframe we need to see that happen in? >> the president has made clear that we need to continue to see tangible steps. >> if we come to december and those items have not been achieved, is that satisfactory? >> i think we have to look at what has been accomplished and what the prospects are for moving it forward. >> how long do we continue with the talks before we see a verifiable cent pension we did before we see a verifiable suspension -- how long do we
6:10 pm
continue with the talks before we see at verifiable suspension? >> it has been a priority since the security council imposed the provisions. i think we need to make -- >> how long has that been? >> 2006. >> we are at the end of 2010. -- we are at the end of 2009. i am trying to get from this administration what is the sense of time? is this open ended and our pursuit? i hope you are successful, believe me. i think we all hope you are successful, but we have to have a timeframe. you do not want the congress to pursue the legislation, but at the same time, you do not give us a timetable. >> i share your concern about this not being a cover for continuing the program or an
6:11 pm
unlimited process. the president has been very clear publicly about the fact that he will not tolerate that. we set a timeframe of september for a comprehensive review, and what we got was the agreement to the actor one meeting -- what we got was the october 1 meeting. we do not want to interrupt progress because we do not know if the sanctions will be affected. we will have very clear indications. that is to say if they do not have the stores of alu -- lau than their ability to move out to nuclear capability is delayed. the clock need to stop digging. we have made clear that that is
6:12 pm
what we are looking for right now. we recognize it may take some time to get a comprehensive settlement, but they need to stop the clock from ticking. that is what we're focused on in the near term. >> i certainly hope that you succeed, but i want you to know that i feel very passionately that this is not like a chess game where you each get to stop your clock. the clock is continuing to take. >> senator schuman. >> senator schumer. as i mentioned, black markets around the world have been serving to circumvent our sanctions against iran. until we address the illegal funnelling of goods, any new sanctions can be skirted as well, at least some of them. andthe eau has been a particular
6:13 pm
cut. we have seen reports that dubai has been working to prevent the shipment from going forward. those have merely shifted to other countries. malaysia and oman continue to be key intermediaries for our run to a legally -- to ilegally acquire u.s. technology. with more inspectors on the ground in this region make a difference in our ability to enforce existing sanctions? >> thank you for the question, senator. more resources are always welcome. >> that was not quite my question. with more inspectors make a difference? >> i would have to say probably.
6:14 pm
-- would more inspectors make a difference? we are trying to expand our blueprint and the president is focused on that. >> how many u.s. officials are currently working on the ground in these countries to investigate the divergence of u.s. goods? >> we have five agents stationed -- we have five posts overseas. >> how many agents? we have 100 agents in the united states. >> how many overseas? >> just five. >> i guess you agree we need more. we should try to get you those. could you describe the cooperation between customs, the state department, fbi and stopping export schemes? >> thank you.
6:15 pm
it truly is a good story to tell. and it has been a remarkable effort on the case that i described in my oral comments described in my oral comments where we had 75 names where -- it was an effort led by congress, but we were strongly supported and worked closely with justice, customs, ice. i remember back in the 1980's, i have been around a while, where relations were not so good. they are good today and we work well with the other agencies. >> next question, any of you may answer this, i am always looking for places where the united states can't act unilaterally and have real economic effect. -- where the united states can act unilaterally and have real
6:16 pm
economic effect. it seems that this would do that because gasoline is a pressure point. what is your view of the effectiveness of that legislation, without commenting specifically? does the administration supports the legislation? >> i think we want to work with the committee and how we craft a package coming out of the congress. >> the concept. i am not asking for language. i am asking what the administration supports the concept of putting pressure on oil companies that sell gasoline to iran? >> i think in terms of which of the potential measures of sanctions, whether they are more targeted on individual entities as opposed to a broad-based bank, i think we have not reached the judgment as to which might be the most effective, in part because not only do we want to have the impact on the economy, we want to make sure
6:17 pm
that will affect the decision taken in iran. there is obviously a risk in these things that there will be divergence and work around. >> it seems to me with gasoline, where there are not that many large refiners and sellers, and most of the large ones need a u.s. market as well, that that is a place that has real possibilities. let me ask you about central bank. i was very active in preventing iranian banks in responding. i do believe the one affected thing we have done economically was when we put pressure on their banking industry. would the administration support a move, which i have already urged to be put in the
6:18 pm
legislation, to extend that in every way we could to the central bank of iran? >> without commenting on without -- without commenting on what action we would take in the future. we have publicly expressed concerned about what you have mentioned, of which is that they had engaged in certain deceptive conduct and have assisted banks that are under unilateral sanctions. what we did do was cut off all iranian institutions from access to the united states financial system. at this point that is the state of affairs with respect to the central bank of iran. the question now is trying to
6:19 pm
broaden that to what other countries can do and having the desired to impact iran. >> i guess i share the frustration expressed by my colleague, senator menendez. i do not trust the iranians one bit. whenever they are squeezed a little bit, a faint and back office. i am not saying we should not pursue the negotiations, but i find it troubling that the administration is not looking to be supportive of the toughest sanctions possible. it is great that the russians have finally said something, but seeing will be believing there. i worked really hard to try to persuade the previous administration to look at the russians and the interconnection of the missiles in eastern europe and sanctions and are wrong. i got nowhere.
6:20 pm
-- i worked really hard to try to persuade the previous administration to look at the russians and the interconnection of the missiles in eastern europe and the sanctions in iran. tell me, is there any reason that you have some optimism that this time it will be different? >> i think we will see in the event we are records by the works of the public and private works, especially the private works. i also think that -- for reasons that you will understand, the specifics of some of the things we're looking at, there is a very internal effort to examine the questions you are asking. are there other measures? we're working very hard on this.
6:21 pm
we recognize that you have said that we may have to move very promptly if we do not get a response in the next couple of weeks on these things to take measures. we will be ready. at this stage for us to go through what we're doing -- you are raising the right questions. we're very focused, and we welcome your thoughts. it is a judgment call as to which of this serious tools -- of these various tools we use. we recognize that we need to be ready quickly. the president has asked us to be in a position to take strong measures quickly if we do not see a very prompt response to the kinds of things they have said they're prepared to do. >> i would recommend the
6:22 pm
toughest measures as possible. you do not want to do with the bush administration did. they sounded tough and did very little. you want to be really tough. >> do any of my colleagues have additional questions? >> i want to address this to mr. hill. in your testimony you lay out the export controls on devices and the effort to good to enforce that. have you done an evaluation on the impact in terms of the iranian economy? >> i am not aware of any internal evaluation that we have done. our focus is to prevent the bad guys from getting stuck to iran. we have not evaluated what that means. -- our focus is to prevent the bad guys from getting stuff to
6:23 pm
iran. >> u.s. corporations have been allowed to set up subsidiaries. >> under our regulations, any u.s. item that is exported by any entity in the world is under our regulations and has no effect. >> it does mean that a u.s. company can set up a foreign subsidiary to engage in trade with iran. well the items cannot be u.s. origin, basically isn't that the only limitation? -- while the items cannot be u.s. oran igin, basically
6:24 pm
isn't it the only limitation? i noticed in your testimony you talk about three planes. you do not list what type of plane, or if you did i miss that. three planes that were not shipped to iran due to the efforts. three u.s. origin aircraft in violation. they turn around and can buy them from a u.s. company that has a subsidiary. planes produced in some other nation. seagull i will be clear, it -- >> they cannot export any foreign-made planes. most of the major airlines and
6:25 pm
aircraft today incorporate significant u.s. parts. so they would be prohibited from export under current regulations. >> i wanted to turn to the effort to address the actions of foreign companies. how many companies have excess penalties under the iran sanctions act? >> there has only been one finding in 1998. the sanctions were waved at the time. to get the answer is zero. -- >> that answer is 0? >> that is correct. >> if you think of the three components, investment, trade, and sales of equipment, that of
6:26 pm
the three comment act only addresses investments. it does not address trade purchases or sales equipment to iran. then the investment portion, we have had reason to not implement sanctions when we found them. is it essentially the isa toothless and perceived as such around the world? >> i think one of the things that is hard to judge, although we can give impressions about it, is the amount of investment that has been detoured. there have been a number of companies which had indicated intention that have made initial plans to make investments and the investments the not go forward because of the results of our investigations.
6:27 pm
i recall someone i was last in office where we had conversations with a foreign governments. it is one of those things that it is not always the case that you can judge applicability of the administration. it has been a deterrent. and i will try to give more details on what we think may have been the impact of other investments which did not take place. i am aware of several. just the fact that has not been opposed does not mean it was toothless in terms of the impact. the goal was not to impose the sanctions, the goal was to get other countries to join with us and doing this. we tried to develop an international consensus around tried to discourage investment. in fact, one of the biggest problems they have had is the difficulty in attracting investment.
6:28 pm
technology is much less for cleaning and effective because of our diplomacy -- technology is much less 4forward-leaning and effective because of our diplomacy. >> am i correct in thinking the french company that was found in violation proceeded with investments and is still proceeding with investments today? >> i would have to get back with yousthe specifics. we keep this all under review. in our judgment, there are no investments that are in violation of the act. >> i will conclude with this notion, and that is that the loopholes limited the impact of
6:29 pm
u.s. sanctions, but the biggest hole is the lack of multi- lateral action. i know the administration is pursuing that aggressively because no matter what the u.s. does on their own, the rest -- if the rest of the world is not with us, it is like building a dam halfway across the river. you do not stop the water from flowing. thank you for your efforts in that regard. >> if there are no further questions, thank you very much, gentlemen. the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]
6:30 pm
>> you are watching c-span, created as a public service by america's cable companies. next on "the communicators," interviews with attendees of the first-ever government 2.0 summit. on "america and the courts," oral argument and religious monuments on government property. after that, live coverage of the speech that president obama gives for a gay-rights group.
6:31 pm
>> tonight, justice sonia sotomayor's first interview since joining the supreme court. >> it reminds us that the role that we play is not a personal role, not a role that should have a personal agenda, but one that has an institutional importance, and that institutional importance is bigger than us. >> justice clarence thomas on his approach to oral arguments and how it differs from his colleagues. we look at the private chambers with justice stephen briar. in a rare television interview, justice samuel alito talks about his job, his support, and the role of the constitution. that is tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this is "the communicators."
6:32 pm
you'll hear a series of interviews from the government 2.0 conference that took place in washington d.c., in september. among those that we interviewed it is the chief technology officer for the united states. he gave us some time at the conference and he will join us next week for the whole show. for now, from the site of the conference, here is our interview. >> thank you. i served as assistant to the president and chief technology officer. i provide advice to the president on the policies that take advantage of technology innovation on his priorities, health care, energy, education, cyber security. i also advocate technology in the economy. i actually provide more policy advice to the president on most of those. >> look of things does he ask advice on? >> we're focused on health care. that is a big topic today.
6:33 pm
the role of healthcare information technology is of great interest. we have a fairly significant investment coming to the stimulus package and my role is to help ensure we have an environment that promotes innovation in the health-care marketplace, rewards quality and transparency, at lower cost. >> one of the concerns is privacy. >> we're making that a security concern, thoughtful and respectful. we will make this a showcase area with a committee of outside advisers that i serve on the panel, looking at security and privacy provisions and recommendations and standards for the entire health-care system. if you want to avail yourself of the incentive payments for the stimulus package, you have to hear the highest -- you have to adhere to the highest levels of security and privacy, integrated in the legislation this fall.
6:34 pm
>> a lot of the stimulus money went to broadband efforts. it is that part of your role? >> absolutely, technically, it is under the agency's responsibility, both the department of agriculture and commerce. they have wonderful programs, as also does the white house. it is my responsibility to support the ordination of the policy recommendations. all of this feeds into the national broadband plan, the work of the fcc, and i've working closely with my colleagues to ensure the best possible input into the broad band planned. we have great confidence it will be a well done exercise. >> as far as the input, do you basically communicate where it goes, or deed direct the fcc as far as the particular details? >> trying to be mindful of the mechanisms by which we engage independent agencies. we're working closely inside the administration to organize our input, finding thoughtful ways
6:35 pm
to introduce that input into the fcc process, largely keeping it to the fcc as directed by the stimulus package. >> talk about how the white house uses media, and does that fall under your purview? >> a little bit. one-third of my mission is instilling a culture of open government. it was the first things he did in government was to direct my office to submit recommendations on to how to create a more open, transparent, participatory government that is more collaborative. i'm working with our chief performance officer and chief information officer to create a culture within the government that is focused on openness and transparency. i give recommendations to the administration on how to do that. in fact, we talked today about hopefully launching an open government directive at the office of management and budget. it will have policy criteria to focus on the hard wire
6:36 pm
accountability for open government. >> talk a little bit about the things that you do that many people may not know about. >> i think my job in two parts. at first, according policy on the issues we described, but also demonstrate that the policies work in action. today, the president, three weeks ago, said we wanted to launch within the veterans administration and innovative website that would allow front- line workers, 19,000 of them, to submit ideas on how to reduce the claims backlog or reduce turnaround times. today we launched that website. already in a matter of hours, thousands of state and federal employes have provided comments and ideas on the site. our premise is to demonstrate what works. the president called for a government that focuses on effectiveness, efficiency. today, less than three weeks after the call for it, we've put this website at the va,
6:37 pm
celebrates the leadership for taking on this project, and it demonstrates what works. we hope to do more of these inside the federal government. >> thank you for your time. >> my pleasure. thank you. >> monica guzman, how has the internet changed journalism? >> it is almost too big of a topic to talk about. is everything from a few are bigger voice is dominating the conversation and news productions and a lot more smaller voices that are getting progressively louder, to new peaks, hyper-local, neighborhoods. over in seattle, it is kind of a laboratory for the slayings. we have amazing -- it is a laboratory for these things. we have amazing blocks, there is that, and there is participation and how the public is affecting news, the conversation about news is becoming part of the story and
6:38 pm
how we as journalists to take that information and feed it back into our work and create a better system for everyone. >> how was your paper fairing as an online publication? >> are not in paper anymore. in march, we became the largest, as far as i know, the largest city metro daily to go online. in the months since, we have been doing fairly well. we have had time to get our stuff together. we are experimenting allot. it is light and a venture. it went from being a fairly large newspaper that could cover many beats to to one that has to pick and choose and say, okay, we need to report in depth about something, which beats will we choose to dominate? we cannot do it all anymore. we are in this new ecosystem of seattle media and we're figuring out where we fit. >> you are identified as a news gatherer.
6:39 pm
is that different than a reporter? >> sometimes people said why go by that term? i think what the term reflects is when not on a report but we moderate conversation about news, we engage with other media, aggregate what other media are saying. in a sense, it is reporting, sure, but with new elements that you give it a new name. >> as far as online, there's something called big block. >> that started in july, 2007, to be more conversational, a bucket for quirky features, stuff about seattle. it has evolved into a place where there is a value of what seattle is talking about, where it is seattle being talked about, and getting everybody together to share. is something of a love of the city. it is more features and art
6:40 pm
scenes, and it tells stories and chapters, briefly, some at life. we like to keep a measure. >> is that your main responsibility for the have other news gathering responsibilities? >> it is my main responsibility, but since we went on line, pretty much every news gatherer and producer, we are all evolving. i am now writing individual stories apart from the blog. everybody is in a mishmash. the goal of the website and the staff is to train everyone to do everything. we will be better photographers. i am already being trained to run a website, produce it. that is a scary responsibility, but a lot of fun. yes, we kind of doing all. >> if technology change the way that you read the publication, it does it help you with your job gathering in putting together the news?
6:41 pm
>> absolutely. words cannot even express how much it helps. one of the ways i express it, you can only quote so many people, but the internet allows people to " more. -- to quote more./ the news becomes a process where everybody is engaged and involved. it is absolutely a godsend when it comes to your location. you have to be well connected. >> are you concerned about the rate that blogs are reporting news. in many cases they do not have editorial oversight and does that concern your job? >> this is why i did not think it is as bad. i think more and more the public is becoming an editor. those sites that report falsehoods or have an extreme
6:42 pm
bias, people are not dumb. pretty soon, you'll notice just by the readership they're not taken seriously. for me, it is a more broad system where the news is not handed to you won a silver platter, this is credible news, you did not even have to wonder. now the reader has to do some work, but is it bad? no one reads it, so who cares? it is almost better to keep it open so that all of these new things emerge freely. sometimes you get duds, but sometimes it blockbusters. >> will, of response has the seattle public had to be online version? what kind of hits are you getting? >> we are seeing, we have always had photo galleries, ways to tell a story, event coverage. that has always been a challenge. it is the same event every year, how do you cover it?
6:43 pm
people with photo galleries have had a very popular feature. we get about 30 million page views every month, down a little bit from where we were at the newspaper, but i think we're confident that it is all right. other things people pay attention to, we are very focused on blogs, so they're very much expected to have twitter accounts, write stories, stay on top of the beat. we're trying to avoid the temptation that the internet gives reporters to skim, aggregate, and the lazy. we're doing those things and sacrificing the fact we cannot just cover everything. we're doing the best that we can. >> you seem optimistic about the future of journalism, to others that you work with, maybe a generationally at the same optimism?
6:44 pm
>> that is interesting. i have talked with colleagues about it, and there are competing thoughts. a lot of people bemoan what they think is the loss of investigative journalism, which is a serious subject. what about the kind of work that takes a lot of money and time. it is true those groups have less resources. my take on that is it is not what all lost. there are things that we're talking about, open data. if you empower the reader to be there on investigative reporter, maybe that is better, maybe then at one guy in a suit stuck in a third floor office writes the story. in the end, i think we all benefit from the fact that everything is one big swirling conversation that never ends. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> your chief economist for
6:45 pm
google. what does that mean? >> i do a variety of things. one of the things that i work on is the auction model. we make money by auctioning off ad space. also on my team, we do a lot of forecasting problems with query volume, revenue forecast. i called and issues like intellectual property, privacy, copyright, that kind of thing. with all of these issues, what you do as far as talking to the people and government about your concerns you may have? >> we have a whole policy team that specializes in that sort of thing. i am brought in along with other people to get our views and look at the problems, see what the right decision is. >> what is the chief concern is for intellectual property is of yours? >> these days, google books and
6:46 pm
the library project, there is a lot of discussion within google and outside about how that is structured. >> any thoughts on how it should be structured? >> i am all for it. i think a lot of these issues are technical. >> is privacy a concern of yours? >> absolutely, privacy is a huge issue debt google. we have a lot of policies in place to try to protect your privacy and we think it is something that is quite important. >> is one of those policies that needs constant updating? >> absolutely, because there's always new technology, so we try to get ahead of the curve on some of this. you look at it, on the one hand, the more you know about somebody, the better you serve them in terms of search results, ads. then again, sometimes people are uncomfortable with that and we want to respect that feeling.
6:47 pm
there's a balancing act. >> how do you achieve that balance? >> i think it is something that you have to look at what people are saying. there are very different attitudes from country to country. it is amazing the differences in terms of how comfortable people are or uncomfortable they are in terms of technology. >> where does the united states fought in the comfort level? >> we tend to be more comfortable. the street view, is widely viewed as a helpful product in the u.s. in other countries, people are more suspicious. i think it is a difference in culture and backgrounds. >> he talked about online advertising, and congress, one of the issues that comes up is behavioral advertising and cons of information used to achieve that. what is your role as far as that discussion is concerned? >> one of the things we look at
6:48 pm
is how effective is to have this personalized advertising. if we could provide better ads for people, more relevant and meaningful, that has to be viewed as a plus. in general, people are not worried about the intended uses of these technologies, to provide technologies,ads. they're worried about unintended uses. the question is getting the benefit from the intended use without the negative side. >> such as? >> identity theft and that kind of thing. it is very easy for you to be able to purchase with one click or two clicks. on the other hand, what makes it easy for you may make it easier for criminals to do the same thing. you need to balance that. >> are you concerned these may result in more regulation from the federal government? >> the question is not so much more regulation, it is whether
6:49 pm
the regulation is informed, weather is sensitive to the benefit-cost trade-off. sometimes to get regulation stampeded in one direction or another. we want awful regulation. >> what do you mean? >> i did not necessarily mean -- what i mean to say is if you are going to have regulation, we like to be thoughtful. >> you want input. >> absolutely. that is the way we do it. that is the way every industry tries to do it. >> do you talk to members of congress about this? i had >> testified before congress on a few things. -- i have testified before congress on a few things. i tend to leave that up to the professionals. >> you talked about the auctioning off of key words. a talk about that. >> the way the business model works, advertisers by keywords, users issue searches or queries.
6:50 pm
if the key word matches the query, the advertiser enters an option to have his advertisement displayed. generally, the highest bidder gets displayed in the most prominent position, and that is the model of google. >> competitive business. >> hugely competitive. >> as far as certain key words and access? >> absolutely, and that is why you have to have somebody at resolving the differences. the people bidding the most are able to display their ads. at the same thing works in any advertising business. you sell the prime-time commercials at a different price than the midnight commercials. here we do it by auction. >> you act as mediator? >> we are the auctioneers. we're the market maker that helps the content providers and advertisers come together. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> john markoff, "new york
6:51 pm
times," you write a lot about cyber security. what is the conversation now about that? everyone >> is waiting for a cyber czar, and the conversation is what is going on behind the scenes and the process in the administration to pick someone. i think there is some division that has set things backe, but i think they're also close to a couple of people. there was a report and the argument was that they needed leaders and we're waiting for the leader. >> who in your mind, what makes a good leader in this position? >> it depends on the community. there is this group of what i call internet companies, and there is this argument with any part of the administration where
6:52 pm
they do not want to cut off innovation and growth. you have a perfectly secure internet. there are trade-offs we're struggling with an ad in not know how we make that compromise, but those are the two sides. >> my follow-up question, the community and silicon valley, what other than what you have described our people in at the committee they're talking about? >> there is that perspective that you need an open internet. and if you regulate too much, they push back on regulation. when the other hand, the computer security industry conference gets bigger every year, and i measure it by the number of p.r. invitations i get. this year was over the top. of that industry is booming, so the valley is very much that part involved in all these
6:53 pm
issues. you did not know which side they're really on at the end of the day. the worse things get, the better they get. it is not situation. >> -- it is an odd situation. >> we saw with the conficker virus that if you group of peoples to take down networks. what is the conversation about that, how much reaction to the government be? >> there is a change, with the government getting involved, with governments getting involved, there are dozens that are building offensive cyber work capabilities, and that complicates the issue, not in a good way. because you have big and small countries and you have this new kind of battlefield that is not symmetrical. the united states in some ways
6:54 pm
it seems the most vulnerable because we're the most technically advanced, and i do not know how that shakes out. i think governments building offensive weapons is a disturbing new feature on the landscape. >> do a lot of the companies in silicon valley have d.c. representation on these issues? >> the valley group decades ago and it is very sophisticated and its interaction with washington, going back to the 1970's. the valley is a player in washington. going all the way back to, i don't know if you remember when clinton came in office, john sculley was prominently portrayed in the state of the union address, and that was sort of the arrival. we are here. >> you write a lot about cyber security. it being pieced -- being based in california, what issues are
6:55 pm
concerned about? >> i cover silicon valley and the science section. and has been mostly cyber security, but i'm trying to find my way of writing about things at the intersection of computing and science. all science is computation on now, so it goes in all kinds of directions. recently, i have followed material science, i am very interested in technology, the next-generation semiconductors. the question that is always asked, when asked,end, and it is not ending yet, but it always looks like it is. >> you see those conversations extending to the federal level to control things like climate change and things of that nature? the climate change issues interesting because people interesting becausegeo- engineering -- because people talk about geo-engineering, and
6:56 pm
people start to think more like biotechnology. they met in 1972 because they were worried that their technology might crawl out of the laboratory, and now the agg guys are thinking about that, too. >> talk a little bit about public why should the government be interested? >> wii helps put government information online. -- we have been putting public information online. we tried to show why this is important why they should run the service instead of us. >> will, of information? >> we have 20 million documents, all the court of appeal documents.
6:57 pm
one-and-a-half years ago, those were not available. there's a feeling among lawyers that this information is not necessarily a general interest to the public, and we're trying to demonstrate that people really care. >> what kind of interest are you getting to the site and what are the people most interested in? >> there is a tremendous pent-up demand for access to what i call america's operating system, legal materials in the united states. a lot of public interest lawyers have not had access to the legal materials they need, a lot of government lawyers have not had access. this is not just laymen and citizens. we try to get this information out there, not on the court of appeals decisions, but building and electrical and fire codes for the entire country on the system. any kid studying for a plumbing license is able to read the plumbing code before they go in
6:58 pm
for an exam. emmett is it easy to be consumed by the average person, the information -- >> is it easy to be consumed by the average person, the information? >> it depends on the information. there is always a large number of people out there, a willingness of people interested in what appeared to be very technical documents, and that regions from patent data to building codes to security documents, which i have also posted on the internet. >> this is done on your own effort. how would you rate the government's effort in making itself transparent? this president on the first day said the government would be transparent and wanted to use technology to do that. >> i have been putting government information on the internet nearly 20 years. this administration is totally different. >> how so? >> people return phone calls, they are trying to do the right thing. there are always issues of
6:59 pm
getting it through the bureaucracy, but there is a recent attempt an effort to get more information online where people can use it. >> does that mean you are in direct dialogue with the administration? >> i am working with half a dozen government agencies now. i used to work for a guy from the center of american progress. a lot of my colleagues and up in the administration. people at general services administration, government printing office all return phone calls and are willing to work with us. >> how would you rate the success for the person who visits your site? what would you say at the end of the day, the success? >> my success will be when our site as a way and the government provides this information instead of us. we're trying to put ourselves out of business. our success will be when all primary materials and the net states, all cases and statutes, can be downloaded by any kid in a


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on